Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 706

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context

Ellis, Rod, Sheen, Younghee, Murakami, Mihoko, Takashima, Hide·2008·System
DOI 10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. Ashwell, 2000, Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multi-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method?, Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 227, 10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00027-8 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Bitchener, 2008, The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students, Language Teaching Research, 12, 10.1177/1362168808089924 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Bitchener, 2005, The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing, Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 227
  4. Chandler, J., 2000. The efficacy of error correction for improvement in the accuracy of L2 student writing. In: Paper presented at the AAAL conference, Vancouver, BC.
  5. Chandler, 2003, The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing, Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 267, 10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Ferris, 1995, Can advanced ESL students be taught to correct their most serious and frequent errors?, CATESOL Journal, 8, 41
  7. Ferris, 1999, The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes. A response to Truscott (1996), Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1, 10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80110-6 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Ferris, 2001, Error feedback in L2 writing classes: how explicit does it need to be?, Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161, 10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X · DOI · Paper page
  9. Guenette, 2007, Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing, Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 40, 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.01.001 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Hyland, 2006, Feedback on second language students’ writing, Language Teaching, 39, 83, 10.1017/S0261444806003399 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Kepner, 1991, An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills, Modern Language Journal, 75, 305, 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1991.tb05359.x · DOI · Paper page
  12. Lalande, 1982, Reducing composition errors: an experiment, Modern Language Journal, 66, 140, 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1982.tb06973.x · DOI · Paper page
  13. Polio, 1998, If only I had more time: ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions, Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 43, 10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90005-4 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Robb, 1986, Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality, TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83, 10.2307/3586390 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Sachs, 2007, Learners’ use of two types of written feedback on an L2 writing task, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 67, 10.1017/S0272263107070039 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Schmidt, 1994, Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics, AILA Review, 11, 11
  17. Semke, 1984, The effects of the red pen, Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195, 10.1111/j.1944-9720.1984.tb01727.x · DOI · Paper page
  18. Sheen, 2007, The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles, TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255, 10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x · DOI · Paper page
  19. Sheppard, 1992, Two feedback types: do they make a difference?, RELC Journal, 23, 103, 10.1177/003368829202300107 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Truscott, 1996, The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes, Language Learning, 46, 327, 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x · DOI · Paper page
  21. Truscott, 1999, The case for “the case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: a response to Ferris, Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 111, 10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80124-6 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Truscott, 2004, Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: a response to Chandler, Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 337, 10.1016/j.jslw.2004.05.002 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Truscott, 2007, The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately, Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255, 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 706

Metadata

Authors
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H.
Venue
System
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-09
Volume
36
Issue
3
Pages
353-371
ISSN
0346-251X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001
OpenAlex
W2012559983
Cited by
706
References
4
FWCI
173.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001
The paper
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.